UTILIZATION OF LAND USE DATA TOIDENTIFY ISSUES OF CONCERN RELATED TOCONTAMINATION AT SITE 050 OF THEMID-CANADA RADAR LINE

Leonard J. S. TsujiUniversity of Waterloo200 University Avenue WestWaterloo, OntarioCanada, N2L 3G1

Harry MansonGeocart Analytical ServicesToronto, OntarioCanada, L4J 5E7

Abstract I Resume

Kelly CooperUniversity of Waterloo200 University Avenue WestWaterloo, OntarioCanada, N2L 3G1

Abandoned Mid-Canada Radar Line (MCRL) stations in northern Canadaare remnants of the "Cold War." Since these stations were not properlydecommissioned, contaminants (e.g., PCBs and lead) have entered theenvironment surrounding these sites. The first MCRL site to beremediated was Site 050 on Anderson Island. Remediation of this sitewas given priority because of its proximity to Fort Albany First Nation(FN) and the high levels of PCBs in soil (up to 21 , 000 ppm; >50 ppm isconsidered hazardous waste) found on site. Data collected in the presentstudy supported the hypothesis that Fort Albany FN residents have beenexposed to contaminants originating from MCRL Site 050.

Les stations de la ligne de radar centre canada (LRCC) abandonneesdans Ie Nord du Canada sont des vestiges de la « guerre froide ». Etantdonne qu'elles n'ont pas ete adequatement declassees, des contami­nants (BPC et plomb) ont ete absorbes dans I'environnement autourdes sites. Le premier site de la LRCC a faire I'objet de mesures correctivesa ete Ie site 050 sur I'TIe Anderson. Le retablissement du site a rec;u lapriorite en raison de sa proximite a la Premiere nation de Fort Albany etdes niveaux eleves de BPC dans Ie sol Ousqu'a 21 000 ppm, alors queplus de 50 ppm indique la presence de dechets dangereux). Les donneescollectees pour la presente etude soutient I'hypothese selon laquelleles Autochtones de Fort Albany ont ete exposes a des contaminantsprovenant du site 050 de la LRCC.

The Canadian Journal of Native Studies XXV, 2(2005):491-527.

492 Leonard J. S. Tsuji I Kelly Cooper I Harry Manson

IntroductionAfter the test of the first Russian-made atomic bomb in 1949, the

Pinetree Radar Line was constructed at approximately the 49th parallelas a joint Canadian-American effort to provide warning of a Soviet nu­clear attack (Myers and Munton, 2000). The successful test of a Soviethydrogen bomb in 1954 heightened the need for the early detection of aSoviet attack across the shortest route (the Arctic region of NorthAmerica) to populated, industrial centres of the USA (Huebert, 2000).Although there was no overt physical confrontation between the twosuperpowers, relationships were strained between the USA and Russia;this political climate was referred to as the "Cold War." In this politicalenvironment of increasing concern with respect to a nuclear strike, tworadar lines (using manned and unmanned stations) north of the Pinetreeline were conceived and built during the 1950s. The Distant Early Warn­ing (DEW) Radar Line and the Mid-Canada Radar Line (MCRL) wouldgive earlier warning of a Soviet nuclear strike than that of the PinetreeLine, allowing time for the deployment of American aircraft to interceptany Soviet bombers (Myers and Munton, 2000).

The DEW Radar Line consisted of 63 stations stretching from Alaskato Greenland at approximately the 70th parallel. The DEW Line was pri­marily an American effort with 42 stations being built in the Canadianterritories (Northwest, Yukon, Nunavut) (Myers and Munton, 2000). TheDEW Line was replaced by the automated North Warning System dur­ing the mid-1980s (Myers and Munton, 2000).

The MCRL or "McGill Fence" consisted of 98 radar stations (eightmanned and 90 unmanned) that stretched from Dawson Creek, B.C., toHopedale, Labrador, at approximately the 55th parallel (EnvironmentalSciences Group [ESG], 1999a; Thorne, 2003; Wilson, 2003). The MCRLwas an entirely Canadian undertaking because it was believed that oneauthority would result in fewer delays and lower cost (and also avoidCanadian funding of the more costly DEW Line; Canadian Cabinet De­fence Committee, 1954). The MCRL would allow detection of Sovietbombers between the altitudes of 300 feet to 60,000 feet using thedoppler principle, basically a "trip-wire" system (Canadian Cabinet De­fence Committee, 1954; Thorne, 2003). The MCRL was fully operationalin 1958 and closed in 1965 (Thorne, 2003; Wilson, 2003). Fifteen MCRLstations were located in Ontario, Canada: three manned sites at Winisk(Site 500), Cape Henrietta Maria (Site 415), and Fort Albany (Site 050);and 12 small, unmanned stations (ESG, 1999a). These MCRL stationswere not properly decommissioned (Gibson, 1993).

Beginning in the 1980s, First Nations (FNs) Chiefs of theMushkegowuk Territory (collectively called the Mushkegowuk Tribal

Council, the regional FN political organization of the western James Bayregion of northern Ontario, Canada) began to express concerns overcontamination originating from the MCRl sites (Edmund Metatawabin,former Chief Fort Albany FN, 1988, pers. comm.; Hunter, 1998). The maincontaminant that has been of interest with respect to the abandonedMCRl sites are polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), although lead (a toxicmetal) has also been identified as a concern (langstaff, 1998; ESG,1999a). PCBs are persistent organic pollutants, synthetic in origin, andmixtures of a possible 209 congeners (ATSDR, 2000). In Canada, PCBswere voluntarily removed from use in open·systems (in contact with theenvironment) during 1971 ; in 1976, federal legislation restricted all usesof PCBs and its disposal (Frank et al. 1993). It should be mentioned thatthe Canadian Department of National Defence ([DND], 2001 :unumbered)has maintained that northern radar line sites "were operated using prac­tices and materials accepted by the environmental standards of the time.The environmental standards of today are not those of yesterday - theyare much more rigorous in accordance with current environmental knowl­edge." Nevertheless, PCBs do exist at MCRl sites and are ofenvironmental and human health concern.

The first documented case concerning PCBs contamination origi­nating from a MCRl site in Ontario (Site 415) occurred in 1983-84, wherethe DND, Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (OMOEE) andOntario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) participated in a clean­up of spilled oil containing PCBs (ESG, 1998). FN concern over PCBswas elevated in the western James Bay region when a control (non­exposed) group comprised of individuals from Attawapiskat FN werefound to have concentrations of PCBs in the blood higher than exposed(contact with an abandoned weather station transformer) members ofthe community. These unexpected results led to an Ontario-wide sur­vey of contaminants in FN communities between 1984-86 (Health Canada,1999). In 1991 , Fort Albany FN reported the existence of waste PCBs atSite 050 (Gibson, 1993). During the summer of 1993, the OMOEE, OMNRand the Ontario Management Board Secretariat inspected the 15 aban­doned MCRl sites in Ontario (Gibson, 1993). In 1997, a partnership wasformed between representatives of the federal government (DND repre­sented by the ESG), the provincial government (OMNR and OMOEE),and FN organization (Nishnawbe Aski Nation [supra-regional FN organi­zation], Mushkegowuk Tribal Council) with respect to remediation ofMCRl sites in Ontario (ESG, 1999a). A Technical Working Group wasformed containing members from all the partners "to perform the inves­tigations [environmental assessment, including delineation of the MCRlsites in Ontario], interpret the results, and make recommendations by

Utilization of Land Use 493

494 Leonard J. S. Tsuji I Kelly Cooper I Harry Manson

consensus" (ESG, 1999b:1). Fort Albany FN or more specifically MCRLSite 050 on Anderson Island was selected as the first site to be remediatedbecause of the high levels of PCBs in soil (up to 21, 000 ppm) and theproximity of Site 050 to the community of Fort Albany FN (ESG, 1999a).

A human health risk assessment (Becking and Bickis, 1999) basedon existing data was commissioned by Medical Services Branch of HealthCanada specifically to deal with potential health issues related to Site050 (Population Health - MSB, 1999). The report by Becking and Bickis(1999) generated a lot of response from representatives of both the fed­eral and provincial government (Cameron, 1999; Downs, 1999; Gibson,1999; Kaczmarek, 1999; Population Health - MSB, 1999; Smith, 1999;Zeeb and Reimer, 1999). One point was clear from the Becking and Bickis(1999) report and responses to the report, a land use study was essen­tial in assessing potential human exposure to PCBs. Documented datawas limited with respect to land use activities on Anderson Island al­though anecdotal information did exist; for example, Langstaff (1998)stated that human visitors to Site 050 had been reported as frequent.Information such as who had lived on Anderson Island, who had swamin ponds and creeks on or around the island (Becking and Bickis, 1999),who ate wild food harvested from the island (Kaczmarek, 1999; Popula­tion Health - MSB, 1999) and who used vascular plants harvested forfood or medicine near Site 050 (Zeeb and Reimer, 1999) would be in­valuable in assessing the potential for human exposure to contaminantsoriginating from Site 050. Thus, a FN land use study was warranted withrespect to Site 050.

Since the 1970s, land use studies have become more popular inCanada (Fast and Berkes, 1994). In the Hudson-James Bay bioregionalone, 15 land use studies have been performed (see Fast and Berkes,1994, for a summary). Land use studies in the Hudson-James Baybioregion have concentrated on five main objectives:

To document Native land claims.To facilitate regional planning and resource co-management.To assess environmental impacts.To document land use activities over time.To fulfill environmental impact assessment requirements(Fast and Berkes, 1994:20).

To our knowledge, we are the first group to use a land use study in theHudson-James Bay bioregion to examine potential human exposure tocontaminants (lead and PCBs). The only comparable study we are awareof is by Kinney et al. (1997). In the Kinney et al. (1997) study, existingresidency and PCBs data (and some newly generated environmentalreceptor data) collected in the vicinity of the Akwesasne Reserve, NY,

Utilization of Land Use 495

USA, were geocoded utilizing a Geographic Information System (GIS).Environmental contaminant data were overlaid on residential locationsto determine potential routes of exposure and gaps in information (Kinneyet al. 1997). In the present study, we will collect, collate and overlayAnderson Island land use data on existing contaminant, spatial data, toidentify potential routes of contaminant exposure for members of FortAlbany FN. Results will be used to identify gaps in our knowledge withrespect to potential human exposure that will help direct us to environ­mental receptors that need to be sampled and analyzed. Data collectedin the present study will provide information to support or dismiss thehypothesis that Fort Albany FN residents have been exposed to con­taminants originating from MCRl Site 050 as suggested by Smith (1999).

The Study Area

Fort Albany First Nation

Fort Albany, Ontario, Canada, is a FN of approximately 850 peoplewhere the Cree language is still predominantly spoken (Tsuji et al. 2001).It is located in the western James Bay region of northern Ontario, Canada,on the southern shore of the Albany River (52°151,81 °351

; Hill, 1999; Tsujiet al. 2001). The community is approximately 18 km upstream of JamesBay and has been designated special access, that is, Fort Albany FN isaccessible year-round only via air transport, by barge in the summerand fall prior to freeze-up, and by tractor train on the winter ice/snowroad (Hill, 1999). Services include: a gravel road system connecting dwell­ings (170 housing units) and buildings (e.g., combined elementary andsecondary school, teacherages, FN administration offices, NorthernStore, Nishnawbe Aski Police office, post office, Peetabeck Health Cen­tre, James Bay General Hospital, day care centre, Koostachin's Motel,Roman Catholic Mission, Hydro building, three stores, abandoned Mid­Canada Radar Line Site 050, and Camp Weechehin); piped water andsewage; hydroelectric power; telephone and television services (Hill,1999). The community is divided into three areas: the village proper onSinclair Island, the mainland, and Anderson Island (Tsuji et al. 2001).Anderson Island is the site of the abandoned Mid-Canada Radar Linestation, Site 050.

Site 050

Although the western James Bay region is generally characterizedby muskeg (i.e., blocks of closely spaced stunted spruce [Picea spp.] ortamarack [Larix laricina] , areas of brush on hummocky moss and lichen­covered ground, and water-logged areas of grasses and sedges in the

vicinity of numerous ponds and lakes; Hanson, 1953), areas of borealforest also exist, such as, on Anderson Island. Site 050 has been de­scribed to consist of four feet of top soil mixed with gravel overburden,an underlying layer of 45 feet of impervious clay, followed by limestone(Langstaff, 1998). Fifteen to 45 cm below the ground surface is the watertable (Langstaff, 1998).

After the closure of the Mid-Canada Radar Line Sites in 1965, a Ca­nadian company was hired to salvage equipment from the abandonedradar bases and demolish all structures; the contract was never com­pleted and bases were left in various stages of demolition (Gibson, 1993).An exception was Site 050, as detailed in Tsuji et al. (2001), the radarbase and other equipment and supplies were acquired by the EpiscopalCorporation; subsequently, Mid-Canada Radar Line site buildings, equip­ment and material were moved off site to the mainland or Sinclair Island.By 1986, all buildings except the diesel generating building (powerhouse)had been moved or demolished (Langstaff, 1998). Paint sampled fromthe walls of the powerhouse contained levels up to 42,000 ppm of lead;paint flaking from the powerhouse and other buildings originating fromSite 050 would be of concern from a human health perspective becauselead in paint may be inhaled and/or ingested (Langstaff, 1998). Further,the sump pit in the powerhouse was examined and it was found that thesurface liquid contained 978 J.lg/L of PCBs, while lower in the pit, a levelof 4,120 J.lg/L of PCBs was reported (Langstaff, 1998). Langstaff (1998)reported concern over the potential for off site migrations of PCBs be­cause the sump pit likely drained to a septic tank that drained to YellowCreek (through an eight inch plastic drainpipe). Historical flooding of theFort Albany area is also a real concern for off site migration of contami­nants. Moreover, in 1993 personnel of the OMOEE transported equip­ment leaking PCBs in a storage trailer from Site 050 to Moosonee, On­tario, located at the southern tip of James Bay (Gibson, 1993; ESG, 1999).

496 Leonard J. S. Tsuji / Kelly Cooper / Harry Manson

Delineation of Site 050Initial delineation of Site 050 by the ESG revealed greatly elevated

levels of PCBs in soil (up to 21 ,000 ppm), vascular plants (up to 550ppm) and paint (up to 1,400 ppm; ESG, 1999a). Leaching from paintcontaining PCBs has been documented in other studies (Kimbrough,1995). PCBs >50 ppm in environmental media are considered hazard­ous waste under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and mustbe removed from site; material containing 5 - 50 ppm can be remediatedin situ or removed from contact with the environment, while, material < 5ppm does not require remediation. Paint chips sampled from Site 050were found to contain lead in the range of 2,600 to 39,700 ppm (ESG,

1999a).Final delineation of Site 050 allowed for the demarcating of the area

to be remediated and the estimation of the amount of soil to beremediated in the different categories, that is, 2,800 m3 > 50 ppm ofPCBs and 4,300 m3 in the 5 - 50 ppm range (ESG, 1999b). Woody veg­etation (n =26), rose hip berries (n =2) and groundwater (n =5) con­tained little PCBs « 0.5 ppm) (ESG, 1999b). Further, potential sites ofconcern identified by community members and in Tsuji et al. (2001) werefound not to be potential sources of PCBs (lead determination was notdone; ESG, 1999b). Remediation of MCRl Site 050 was completed inthe summer 2001 .

Methodology

Questionnaire

Data was gathered through a detailed questionnaire that had beendeveloped in partnership with Fort Albany FN. Potential participants hadto be 18 years of age. Candidates were chosen at random and inter­viewed by FN representatives; however, at the Band's request, an effortwas made to include all people who had lived on Anderson Island. Ques­tionnaires were completed in a compressed time period (June, 1999;incomplete questionnaires or questionnaires that needed clarificationwere completed outside this time period), so that data collected couldbe initially analysed prior to the scheduled remediation of Mid-CanadaRadar Line Site 050 located on Anderson Island. Of 146 people (females,n=71; males, n=75) approached to participate in this study, only twopeople (males) refused to be interviewed; these males were not demo­graphically different from those participating in the study. Communityparticipation rate was acceptable; 41 % of eligible community members(females, 430/0; males, 390/0) participated in the study.

Respondents were asked about personal activity on Anderson Is­land, habitation (location, time period), work (location, type of work, lengthof work term), recreational activities (type, location, season of activity,days/year, time period of activity), educational activity (location, lengthof time in educational activity, time period), harvesting activity of smallgame (species, location, time period, season or months, days/year,amount of harvest/year), harvesting of fish (species, location, time pe­riod, season or months, days/year, amount of harvest/year), harvestingof berries (type, location, time period, season or months, days/year,amount of harvest/year), harvesting of plants (species, location, timeperiod, season or months, days/year, amount of harvest/year), trapping(species, location, time period, season or months, days/year, amount ofharvest/year), harvesting of trees (species, location, time period, sea-

Utilization of Land Use 497

son or months, days/year, amount of harvest/year), and consumption ofwater (sources, location, time period, season or months, days/year). Twoopen-ended questions at the end of the questionnaire allowed partici­pants to add anything that they deemed was important and/or not cov­ered by the questionnaire.

A data dictionary was devised based on responses to the question­naire; categories were mutually exclusive and formulated dependent onthe answers most commonly given by respondents. Data were enteredinto a spreadsheet to derive summary/descriptive statistics. Male andfemale data were treated separately to investigate sex differences inactivities. Male and female data was not treated separately when pro­ducing maps.

Land-use MapsIn order to produce a series of land use maps identifying activity on

Anderson Island and surrounding surface water, a base map was cre­ated by tracing features of interest from an air photo of the area. Theresulting base map delineated Anderson Island, Sinclair Island, a por­tion of the mainland, the surrounding surface hydrology, and anthropo­genic features of interest including transportation networks, and the"decomissioned" radar base. The base map was then segmented intoone-inch square (2,500 m2) quadrats/cells. Each interviewee was thenasked to identify the regions on the map where they participated in anumber of daily activities (as outlined in the Questionnaire section) in­cluding: living, working, recreation, education, fishing, trapping of hare,harvesting of grouse, berry picking and water collection. A series of eightbase maps were then prepared for each activity based on interviewerresponse that identified the number of individuals in each quadrat/cellwho indicated participating in each activity of interest.

In order to facilitate further analysis, the base map was scannedand digitized using the GIS software ArcGIS 8.3. The base map wasimported into the software as a scanned bitmap image and a series ofspatial layers was created that were synonymous with features of inter­est including land, surface hydrology, roadways and the contaminatedsite. A spatial database was then created by digitizing the one-inchquadrat lattice. This created a spatially exhaustive but discrete series ofpolygon objects on a separate spatial layer. Each quadrat then formed asingle record in a corresponding spatial database containing a uniquefield for each land use activity. The database was then populated byentering the number of individuals participating in each activity withineach quadrat.

Because the study was primarily concerned with activity that oc-

498 Leonard J. S. Tsuji / Kelly Cooper / Harry Manson

ResultsOf the 71 females interviewed, 68 women (960/0 of participants) re­

sponded that they had been active on Anderson Island. Similarly, 71 of73 males (970/0) responded that they had been active on the island. Theaverage age of female participants was 42 years (range, 19 - 85 years)while for males it was 43 years (range, 18 - 85 years). It should be notedthat non-responses to questions and responses that could not be quan­tified (e.g., a person who would eat berries as soon as they were picked,often could not recall the amount harvested; terms such as some, lots,etc. could not be categorized) were not included in the calculations;thus, number of respondents for sub-categories of questions do notalways add up to the number of people who stated that they partici­pated in a particular activity. For example, 15 females (21 % of partici­pants) and 17 males (230/0) responded that they had lived on AndersonIsland. One female had lived on the island pre-1955 while 11 had livedon the island post-1955. For males, six had lived on the island prior to1955 and six post-1955. Not all respondents indicating that they hadlived on Anderson Island were accounted for as explained above.

curred on Anderson Island and the surrounding surface hydrology, datawere isolated to the region of interest through a series of geoprocessingprocedures. First the grid was combined with the land-data layer throughan Intersection procedure. This involves the overlay of polygons in onespatial layer with polygons in another spatial layer such that a uniquelayer is produced where regions common to both polygons form a uniqueshape which then contains the attributes associated with each of theoriginal polygons. The outcome of this produces a unique map for bothland and water bodies such that the information associated with eachquadrate is now spatially restricted to the boundaries of each land formand surface hydrology feature. A separate spatial layer was then cre­ated for Anderson Island and the surrounding hydrology from the result­ing overlay. These layers were then used in combination with other landfeatures and quantitative shading symbology to produce a series ofchroropleth maps (Figure 1-9) illustrating the frequency, spatial varia­tion and pattern for each activity of interest in conjunction with the roadnetwork and the quadraVcell containing the contaminated site/radarbase. It should be noted that the cell containing the contaminated site/radar base is larger than the actual delineated area because of the levelof spatial partitioning used (i.e., the use of one-inch quadrats).

Utilization of Land Use 499

Non-Harvesting Activities

Eighteen females (250/0 of participants) and 47 males (64%) replied

500 Leonard J. S. Tsuji / Kelly Cooper / Harry Manson

that they had worked on Anderson Island. For females, employment atCamp Weechehin (Anderson's Point) was the workplace most commonlyreported (n=7) and counsellor (n=4) was the most common job descrip­tion given. Other places of employment included the Hudson Bay Com­pany, old age home, and health centre. length of employment varied: 1­6 months (n=8), 7 months - 1 year (n=4), >1 - 2 years (n=3), >2 -3 years(n=1), and 4 years (n=2). The most common response for males was"many places" (n=1 0); other identified workplaces were the Hudson BayCompany, old age home, air strip, powerhouse, MCRl base, barge load­ing area by Anderson's Point, and Camp Weechehin. length of employ­ment data were as follows: 1-6 months (n=20), 7 months - 1 year (n=5),>1 - 2 years (n=7), >2 -3 years (n=6), >3-4 years (n=2), and 4 years (n=6).The most frequently reported type of work was "many things" (n=7) withlabourer (n=6) being the next most commonly reported job type.

Educational activity data are presented in Table 1. Most of the re­spondents for both females (350/0 of people who had been active onAnderson Island) and males (17%) spent 1 - 6 months in educationalactivities on· the island. For women, most of the activity was concen­trated during the 1975-1999 time period (200/0 of people who had beenactive on Anderson Island); meanwhile, men (14%) were most active inthe 1956 - 1975 period (Table 1).

The most common activity on Anderson Island was related to rec­reation (Table 1). Ninety-three percent of all women and men interviewedwere involved in recreational activities on Anderson Island. Recreationalactivities included the following: walking (females, n=53, 780/0 of womenactive on Anderson Island; males, n=47, 660/0), playing/other (females,n=26; males, n=36), biking/riding (females, n=23; males, n=16), swim­ming (females, n=16; males, n=7), camping (females, n=5; males, n=3),driving (females, n=6; males, n=7), hiking (females, n=8; males, n=10),picnicking (females, n=15; males, n=6), snow machining (females, n=9;males, n=5), jogging (females, n=8; males, n=8), hockey (females, n=4;males, n=3), four-wheeling (females, n=5; males, n=7), sledding (females,n=4), and baseball (males, n=2). Most women (340/0 of females respond­ing as active on the island) participated in activities during the years1976 - 1999; most men (28%) were active in the 1956 - 1999 time frame.The most popular season for activity by women was the summer (34%)while for the men, most men (31 0/0) utilized the island all year. Men (370/0)and women (35%) were typically active 1 - 50 days/year on AndersopIsland; however, 23% of females and 20% of males were active 51 - 250days/year, while 120/0 of females and 170/0 of males were involved inactivities 251 - 365 days/year.

Utilization of Land Use 501

Table 1Recreational and educational activity data for people responding ashaving been active on Anderson Island.

Variable Activity

Recreational Educational

Females Males Females Malesn n n n

Participants (0/0)8 66 (970/0) 68 (960/0) 25 (370/0) 23 (320/0)

Time Period< 1955 1 11956 -1975 5 10 3 101976 -1999 23 16 14 5< 1955 -1999 7 51956 -1999 11 20 3 4

Seasons of ActivityWinter na naSpring 2 na naSummer 23 19 na naFall 2 na naTwo-seasons 19 18 na naThree-seasons 2 4 na naYear-round 16 22 na na

Days of Activity (per year)1 - 50 24 26 na na51 - 250 16 14 na na251- 365 8 12 na na

Months of Activity1 - 6 na na 24 127 -12 na na 513 - 24 na na 1 325 - 36 na na 1>36 na na 2

a Percentage of people responding as having been active on Anderson Island.

Harvesting Activities

Species of small game harvested on Anderson Island were the sharp­tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianel/us), spruce grouse (Falcipenniscanadensis), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbel/us), and the snowshoe hare(Lepus americanus). A sex difference was noted where more males (n=37)and a larger percentage of males (520/0 of the men responding that theywere active on Anderson Island) harvested grouse compared to females(n=13, 190/0; Table 2). For both females and males, 1976 - 1999 (women,380/0; men, 54%) and 1956 - 1999 (women, 46%; men, 35%) were thetwo time periods most people were actively harvesting grouse. Activityfor a single season was greatest during the fall for both males (46%) andfemales (31 %) although women were equally active in the summer. Mostpeople were active 1 - 50 days/year (females, 54%; males, 70%) while380/0 of women and 14% of men were active 51 - 250 days/year. Therewas a large range in number of birds harvested per year; most men(49%) reported 1 - 10 birds taken per year in contrast to most women(31 %) who indicated 50 birds/year. Hare harvesting was shared betweenthe sexes with 18 females and 25 males reporting partaking in this activ­ity (Table 2). People were most active during the 1976 -1999 (females,28%; males, 44%) and 1956 - 1999 (females, 44%; males, 40%) timeperiods. Winter was the most commonly reported single season for har­vesting hares (females, 61 %; males, 28%). Most men (52%) and women(39%) reported being active 1 - 50 days/year; however, 330/0 of the womenalso reported being active 51 - 250 days/year. Although most peopleharvest 1 - 10 hares/year (females, 50%; males, 400/0), some people (fe­males, 6%; males, 12%) harvest 50 hares/year.

Species of fish harvested around Anderson Island include: whitefish(Coregonus spp.), pike (Esox lucius), suckers (Catostomus spp.), andwalleye (Stizostedion vitreum). Fishing is a popular activity for both wo­men (320/0 of the women responding as having been active on AndersonIsland) and men (510/0; Table 3). The time period 1956 - 1999 was theinterval most women reported as having been active in fishing (32%),followed by 1956 - 1975 (27%). By contrast, males were most active infishing (47%) during the 1976 - 1999 time period. Summer was the sin­gle season of greatest activity for females (54%) and males (440/0). Themajority of men (47%) were active 1 - 50 days/year while women wereequally active (41 %) in the 1 - 50 and 51 - 250 days/year categories. Themajority of women (68%) harvested 50 fish/year; most men (36%) har­vested 21 - 30 fish/year but 25% harvested 50 fish/year.

Types of animals trapped on Anderson Island: marten (Martesamericana), mink (Mustela vison) , weasel (Mustela erminea), muskrat(Ondatra zibethica), skunk (Mephitis mephitis), fox (Vulpes spp.), beaver

502 Leonard J. S. Tsuji / Kel/y Cooper / Harry Manson

Utilization of Land Use 503

Table 2Small game harvesting data for people responding as having beenactive on Anderson Island.

Variable Activity

Grouse HareHarvesting Harvesting

Females Males Females Malesn n n n

Participants (0/0)8 13 (190/0) 37 (520/0) 18 (260/0) 25 (35%)

Time Period< 1955 1 11956 -1975 2 1 3 21976 -1999 5 20 5 11< 1955 -1999 11956 -1999 6 13 8 10

Seasons of ActivityWinter 1 3 11 7SpringSummer 4 1 4Fall 4 17 1 4Two-seasons 10 3 6Three-seasons 3 3Year-round 1 2

Days of Activity (per year)1 - 50 7 26 7 1351 - 250 5 5 6 4251- 365 1 3

Number Harvested (per year)1 -10 3 18 9 1011 - 20 2 7 3 421 - 30 3 4 3 331 - 40 4 341 - 50 1>50 4 2 1 3

a Percentage of people responding as having been active on Anderson Island.

Table 3Fishing and trapping activity data for people responding as havingbeen active on Anderson Island.

Variable Activity

Fishing Trapping

Females Males Females Malesn n n n

Participants (%)a 22 (32%) 36 (51 %) 1 (1 %) 15 (21 %)

Time Period< 1955 2 11956 -1975 6 51976 -1999 4 17 8< 1955 -1999 11956 -1999 7 9 6

Seasons of ActivityWinter 2 2SpringSummer 12 16 1Fall 3 4 8Two-seasons 6 10 4Three-seasons 2

Days of Activity (per year)1 - 50 9 17 1 851 - 250 9 11 6251- 365 3 7

Number Harvested (per year)1 -10 4 5 1 311 - 20 2 421 - 30 2 13 431 - 40 241 - 50 3>50 15 9 2

504 Leonard J. S. Tsuji I Kelly Cooper I Harry Manson

a Percentage of people responding as having been active on Anderson Island.

(Castor canadensis) and squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus). Trappingwas a predominantly male activity (21 % of men responding as havingbeen active on Anderson Island) with only 1% of females participating(Table 3). Moreover, the lone female only trapped prior to 1955. Malesreported trapping during only two intervals 1976 - 1999 (53%) and 1956- 1999 (40%). Fall was the single season most men (530/0) were active.Days of activity per year for men were nearly evenly split between thetwo categories 1 -50 (530/0) and 51 - 250 (400/0). Number of animals trappedwere generally 30 (73% of males) but some men (13%) reported 50 ani­mals/year.

Types of berries reported as being harvested included: cranberries,raspberries (Rubus ideaus), gooseberries (Ribes grossularia) ,mooseberries (Viburnum edule), blueberries (Vaccinium uliginosum) andground berries (Gaultheria procumbens). A large proportion of people(females, 66% of people active on Anderson Island; males, 41 %; Table4) reported having participated in berry picking. Cranberries were har­vested by most people (females, n=31 , males, n=18), followed by rasp­berries (females, n=13; males, n=7). The most common time period forberry harvesting was 1976 -1999 (females, 38%; males, 520/0) followedclosely by the interval 1956 - 1999 (females, 36%; males, 380/0). Themajority of women (60%) reported summer as the single season whenberry harvesting occurred. In contrast, 480/0 of men were active in thefall. Days of activity per year clustered in the 1 - 50 category for bothsexes (females, 80%; males, 90%). Women most often collected 1 - 5pails/year (27%); responses from men were more varied (i.e., 70/0 of re­spondents each fell into one of these categories, a 0 pail, 1 bucket and>1 gallon).

Types of plants reported as being collected included: Labrador tea(Ledum groenlandicum), moss (Bryophyta), herbs, grasses (Poaceae),and rose hips (Rosa spp.). A greater proportion of females (250/0) har­vested plants compared to males (140/0; Table 4). Harvesting activitywas concentrated in the 1956 - 1999 time period for females (350/0 ofpeople responding as having been active on Anderson Island); no clearpattern was discernable for males. The majority of activity for a singleseason was found to be during summer (women, 290/0; men, 700/0). Mostpeople (females, 65%; males, 70%) were active 1 - 50 days/year collect­ing plants in bunches (females, 410/0; males, 400/0).

Trees species harvested were tamarack, spruce and pine. Males(520/0 of people responding as having been active on Anderson Island)dominated this activity compared to females (240/0; Table 5). The mostactive period for females was 1956 - 1999 (380/0), and for males, 1976 ­1999 (49%). Winter was the season of greatest activity for both groups

Utilization of Land Use 505

a Percentage of people responding as having been active on Anderson Island.

Table 4Berry and plant harvesting activity data for people responding ashaving been active on Anderson Island.

Leonard J. S. Tsuji I Kelly Cooper I Harry Manson

24

nananana

711

Malesn

47

nananana

1132

Harvesting ofPlants

Femalesn

nana

2122

263

Malesn

nana

11 1

V 5 5 715 142 8 3 1

1

2 37 1 3 217 15 3 316 11 6 2

Activity

Harvesting ofBerries

45 (66%) 29 (410/0) 17 (25%) 10(14%)

Femalesn

BundleBunches

Amount Harvested (per year)o pail r pint) 71 - 5 pails 121 bucket (1 gallon) 3> 1 gallon 5

Days of Activity (per year)1 - 50 3651 - 250 4251- 365

Seasons of ActivityWinterSpringSummerFallTwo-seasonsThree-seasons

Time Period<19551956 -19751976 -19991956 -1999

Participants (%)a

Variable

506

Utilization of Land Use 507

TableSTree harvesting and water collection data for people responding ashaving been active on Anderson Island.

Variable Activity

Tree Harvesting Water Collection

Females Males Females Malesn n n n

Participants (0/0)8 16 (240/0) 37 (520/0) 31 (46%) 36 (510/0)

Time Period< 1955 2 11956 -1975 2 5 5 101976 -1999 5 18 9 7< 1955 -1999 1 11956 -1999 6 5 14 11

Seasons of ActivityWinter 11 21 na naSpring 1 5 na naSummer 3 9 na naFall 8 na na

Days of Activity (per year)1 - 50 7 26 10 951 - 250 5 6 14 15251-365 1 1 11

Number Harvested (per year)1 - 20 6 11 na na21- 40 10 na na41 - 60 5 4 na na61 -80 3 na na81 -100 1 na na> 100 1 na na

a Percentage of people responding as having been active on Anderson Island.

508 Leonard J. S. Tsuji / Kelly Cooper / Harry Manson

(females, 69%; males, 57%). The largest percentage of females (44%)and males (70%) indicated they were active 1 - 50 days/year and har­vested 1 - 20 trees (females, 380/0; males, 30%).

Sources of water utilized on Anderson Island were reported as river,spring and tap. The sexes participated equally in this task (females, 460/0;males; 51 %; Table 5). Activity was greatest during the 1956 - 1999 timeperiod (females, 45%; males, 300/0). The greatest percentage of peoplewere active 51 - 250 days/year (females, 45%; males, 420/0).

Spatial Relationships of Activities on Anderson Island toMid-Canada Radar Line Site 050

Not all areas on Anderson Island have been utilized equally by peo­ple of Fort Albany First Nation. Figure 1 and 2 clearly illustrate that themajority of people who have lived and/or worked on Anderson Islandhave done so in the area that includes Site 050. Moreover, 880/0 of peo­ple interview,ed in the present study reported to having been involved inrecreational activity in or around Site 050 (Figure 3). Recreational activ­ity was greatest in the areas where there was ease of access, that is,along roads, old throughways and the abandoned runway (Figure 3).Educational activity was centred in two areas, Site 050 and Anderson'sPoint (Figure 4).

Two types of small game, grouse and hare, were mapped. Figure 5shows that harvesting of grouse was concentrated along the road onAnderson Island. Further, fourteen people indicated that they harvestedgrouse directly in the area of Site 050. By contrast, hares were harvestedprimarily in the grid square of Site 050 or the contiguous areas (Figure6).

Fishing occurred around the whole perimeter of Anderson Islandbut was concentrated in the channel separating Anderson Island andthe mainland (Yellow Creek), and around Anderson's Point at the tip ofthe island (Figure 7). The pattern of trapping showed no clear prefer­ence for men to utilize a specific grid square; thus, this figure is notpresented.

Berry harvesting showed a pattern similar to recreational activitywhere activity was concentrated along roadways on Anderson Island.Important to note is that 14% of the people interviewed harvested ber­ries in the area of Site 050 (Figure 8). The pattern of plant harvesting wasdiffuse with no real area where harvesting was relatively intense wasreported, but four people do report harvesting plants in the area of Site050. Similarly, no distinctive pattern was seen for areas of tree harvest­ing; however, it should be noted that seven people did harvest trees inthe area of Site 050 (no figures are presented for plant and tree harvest­ing).

Water was obtained from the river around Anderson Island includ­ing Yellow Creek, from taps at the homes on Anderson, and from a springlocated in the grid square where Site 050 was located (Figure 9). Moreo­ver, 26% of the people interviewed drank water that originated from thearea of the old radar line site.

DiscussionIt is clear from the present study that members of Fort Albany FN

have been extremely active on Anderson Island with the majority of ac­tivity being centred around the contaminated quadrant (Figure 1-9). Thisis not surprising because of the road and trails throughout Site 050;ease of access has been identified as a factor increasing risk of expo­sure for humans as well as wildlife to contaminants (Myers and Munton,2000). When one also takes into account the halo effect, where contami­nates from old radar line stations have been shown to undergo shortrange transport (PCBs, 5 km from a point source, Bright et al. 1995a;PCBs and lead, 10 km, Dushenko et al. 1996), then the area of potentialcontaminant exposure increases to include not only the contaminatedarea but also contiguous areas.

Specifically, it is clear that non-harvesting activities on AndersonIsland are spatially clustered in the grid square containing the contami­nated site (Figure 1-4). Approximately 23% of people participating in thepresent study lived on Anderson Island. The vast majority lived in closevicinity to Site 050 (Figure 1). Although the majority of people surveyedworked in the grid square containing the contaminated site (Figure 2),exposure to contaminants would depend on exactly where one workedin the grid and also what type of work one performed. Only men re­ported having worked in Site 050 and often as manual labour; thus, thepotential for exposure through employment would be greater for menbecause of the probability of direct physical contact with the contami­nants. Time of employment would be another factor impacting risk; somemen reported working in the contaminated grid for 4 years. Educationalactivities were clustered in the contaminated area and in the vicinity ofAnderson Point. Although there is potential for contaminant exposurefrom educational activity, it would be minimal. The non-harvesting ac­tivity with the greatest potential for contamination exposure other thanhaving worked on the MCRL site is recreation.

Recreational activity on Anderson Island was spatially most con­centrated in the contaminated area; activity was also high in grid squareswhere there was a road, path, or some clearing to allow for ease ofaccess (Figure 3). Taking into consideration that it is relatively easy tomove in and around Site 050, the potential for contaminant exposure is

Utilization of Land Use 509

tremendous, especially when the type of activity people were involvedin is accounted for. For example, the activities of walking, playing, bik­ing/riding, swimming, hiking, and jogging in the vicinity of Site 050 wouldobviously increase the risk of exposure. Time spent in and around thecontaminated site would also be of importance. Although most peoplewere active on Anderson Island 1 - 50 days/year, 24% of females and200/0 of males were active 51 - 250 days/year and 12% of females and17% of males participated in recreational activities 251 -365 days/year(Table 1). Clearly, the time community members spent on Anderson Is­land participating in recreational activities is of concern as related topotential contaminant exposure.

Harvesting activities in the present study refers to hunting, fishing,trapping and the collection of berries, vascular plants, trees, and water.These type of data are important in the characterization of dietary inputof contaminants. In addition to the actual ingestion of contaminatedenvironmental media, there is potential for contaminant exposure throughthe harvesting activity itself through inhalation and dermal contact, es­pecially for PCBs. Harvesting data will also provide justification for whichreceptors to sample and analyze. Although Berkes et al. (1994) reportrelatively low rates of harvesting for potential hunters (males 18 years,female heads of household) during the 1990 calendar year for Fort Albany(Berkes et al. 1994), results of the present study do not support thiscontention. Differences in the studies may be related to the fact that thepresent study examined yearly averages (rather than calendar year har­vest data) and female respondents were well represented in the presentstudy. The spatial scales were also different in that we only examinedactivity on Anderson Island while Berkes et al. (1994) examined the wholeMushkegowuk Territory; thus, if anything, data from the present studywould underestimate harvesting activity because, of the small circum­scribed area (Anderson Island) studied.

For small game, hare harvesting (260/0 of respondents) was morepopular with females relative to grouse harvesting (19%), by contrastmore males harvested grouse (52%) than hare (35%; Table 2). This sexdifference may be related to the method of harvest; hare are generallysnared while grouse are harvested either with lead shotshell or 22 cali­bre bullets (note: grouse were traditionally snared in the past). Perhaps,females are less likely to own a firearm. When harvest data (Table 2) arecombined for the two activities (grouse and hare harvesting) and thesexes are not separated, the number of estimated participants (33% ofrespondents) is in general agreement with Berkes et al. (1994), who re­ported 300/0 of respondents in Fort Albany FN participated in small gameharvesting; however, grouse harvesting data for males indicates that

510 Leonard J. S. Tsuji / Kelly Cooper / Harry Manson

Utilization of Land Use 511

approximately half the males interviewed were involved in this activity.To calculate the number of small game animals harvested/year/person,the lower end of a range (an underestimation) was used and multipliedby the number of people in a category to get the number of animals perrange, these values were summed and then divided by the total numberof people in all harvest categories to get an average of the number ofanimals harvested per person. The mean harvest per person for smallgame (14.3) in the present study is in general agreement to that reportedby Berkes et al. (1994) for Fort Albany of 15.9. Similar to Berkes et al.(1994), we found that the majority of small game harvesting activity isconcentrated in winter and fall. It appears that our data support Berkeset al. (1995) assertion that females are active in small game harvestingand that this activity is concentrated around the community.

Spatial distribution of small game harvesting shows a distinctivepattern for grouse harvesting along roadways and paths where grouseare known to frequent including the contaminated zone (Figure 5), withhare (a herbivore) harvesting being concentrated in the contaminatedarea and the contiguous zone around Site 050 (Figure 6). The pattern ofsmall game harvesting is of concern because the activity of harvestingitself (Le., walking, setting snares, etc.) in the contaminated zone, couldexpose a person to contaminants. Further, vascular plants from Site050 are known to be highly contaminated (up to 550 ppm; ESG, 1999a)and it has been shown that a 6.5 fold increase in PCBs concentrationoccurs from vascular plants to herbivore in northern Canada (Braune etal. 1999). Further, grouse species typically ingest grit (small stones andsand) and store this material in their gizzard to assist in the masticationof vegetative matter; thus, grouse could be exposed to contaminatedsoil (PCBs or lead) through this mechanism resulting in tissue uptake.There is real potential for small game to become contaminated in ornearby Site 050 and pose a threat to humans who ingest them.

Fishing was a popular harvesting activity; it was found that 420/0 ofall participants in the present study (females, 32%; males 510/0) fished(Table 3). This participation rate contrasts sharply the reported 12% ofrespondents reported that they fished in the Berkes et al. (1994) study.Likewise, 3,548 person days/year (calculated in the same manner asreported for small game) were devoted to fishing while Berkes et al.(1994) reports only 199 person days spent on fishing for Fort Albany.This difference is probably a reflection of the close spatial proximity ofAnderson Island, a person may spend a short period of time fishing (e.g.,one hour), but it would still be calculated as a day in the present codingsystem. However, it is in the opinion of the authors through personalexperience that the number of person days attributed to Fort Albany is

512 Leonard J. S. Tsuji / Kelly Cooper / Harry Manson

underestimated in the Berkes et al. (1994) study. Mean number of fishalso differed between studies with 29.2 fish/year/person for our studyand 63.3 being reported by Berkes et al. (1994). However, we are in agree­ment that most fishing occurs during the summer season (Table 3).Spatially, most people fish in Yellow Creek or around Anderson Point.Thus, there is potential that fish may be a source of contaminants forthe community if it can be shown that there is migration of PCBs off sitefrom the old MCRL station. The potential for off site migration is realbecause concern has been reported about an 8" plastic drainpipe lead­ing from the potentially contaminated septic tank in the powerhouse tothe bank of Yellow Creek (Langstaff, 1998). Further, off site radar linecontamination has been noted in aquatic receptors in several studies(Bright et al. 1995b, Bright et al. 1995c). Nevertheless, the potential forcontaminant exposure through this route cannot be properly assessedbecause no PCB contaminant data for sport fish in the Albany Riverexists (Kaczmarek, 1999), except for a limited study by McCrea andFischer (1986). This potential route of exposure is currently being ex­plored (McCreanor et al. unpublished data).

Trapping was found to be a primarily male activity, the only womenwho reported trapping did so prior to 1955 (before the MCRL was built;Table 3); thus, discussion of trapping data will be limited to males. Ap­proximately 21 % of male respondents had participated in trappingactivities on Anderson Island, averaged 18 animals (all species) per yearwhen trapping, and trapped primarily in fall and winter (Table 3). Berkeset al. (1994) report only 4% of Fort Albany respondents trap with a meancatch of 12.2 animals per year; Berkes et al. (1995) adds that trappingoccurred primarily during winter and late fall. The difference in reporteddata for the two studies is probably a reflection of historical information(present study) versus recent information for a calendar year (Berkes etal. 1994). The potential for contaminant exposure appears minimal be­cause trapping occurs uniformly on Anderson Island and most activityis concentrated in late fall and winter where physical exposure would bedecreased due to a layer of clothing.

Although 530/0 of all respondents participated in berry harvesting,only 419 person days (6 days/year/person) were spent on this activity.Similarly, Cummins (1992) found that 39% of households in the westernJames Bay community of Attawapiskat FN participated in berry har­vesting. If one takes into account that rose hip berries (n = 2) sampledfrom Site 050 have been shown not to be contaminated with PCBs «0.5ppm), it appears that the ingestion of berries is not of great concern, butmore data are needed (ESG, 1999b).

It has been demonstrated that concentration of PCBs in plants are

significantly correlated with PCBs in soil (r2=0.98) (Braune et al. 1999);thus, it is not surprising that the levels of PCBs in vascular plants havebeen reported up to 550 ppm at Site 050 (ESG, 1999a). PCBs levels invascular plants may be the result of either absorption through root up­take or adsorption of airborne contamination (Dushenko et al. 1996).Airborne contamination may be the result of either long range transportor short range redistribution from a point source (AMAP, 1998). PCBs insoil undergo volatilization (Ayris and Harrad, 1999) and are aerially re­distributed to the surface of leaves. In this scenario, PCBs would undergoadsorption to the waxy cuticle, a lipophilic surface (Dushenko et al. 1996).It matters little for human or wildlife exposure if the PCBs are absorbedor adsorbed to tissue (Zeeb and Reimer, 1999). Zeeb and Reimer (1999)were quite correct when they suggested that PCBs were entering thefood chain through vascular plants at Site 050. Results of the land usestudy indicate that people could be exposed directly to PCBs in vascu­lar plants through the ingestion of Labrador tea or indirectly throughingestion of herbivores (e.g., hares) that consume vascular plants. Wedo not concur with the assertions of Kaczmarek (1999) that the ESG(1999a) vascular plant data were of limited use because plants testedwere not of types used for human consumption and Smith (1999) thatgrass is not necessarily part of the food chain. Thus, the potential existsfor exposure through direct ingestion of contaminated vascular plantsor indirectly through the consumption of herbivores. It should be notedthat the ingestion of contaminated vascular plants would be relativelyless important than herbivore consumption, since plant harvesting wasnot centred around Site 050. Also, harvesting of plants was not reportedas being popular for males (Table 3).

Accounting for the fact that tree harvesting on Anderson island wasan important activity for the community, especially for males (Table 5),this finding has to be put in perspective of recent studies. In a compos­ite samples of woody plants (n = 26) collected from Site 050, it wasfound that all samples had PCBs concentrations < 0.5 ppm (ESG, 1999b).It was concluded that the wood is safe to be burned (ESG, 1999b). Theconcern was that if the wood was contaminated with PCBs, improperincineration of the wood would produce PCDFs, a highly toxic substancewith proven human health effects. Harvesting and burning of wood takenfrom Site 050 cannot be considered a potential route of human expo­sure.

Water collection on Anderson Island by members of Fort Albany FNhas been extensive with approximately half of the people interviewed(Table 5) indicating that they have collected water from this area. More­over, the majority of people that have collected water on Anderson Island

Utilization of Land Use 513

514 Leonard J. S. Tsuji I Kelly Cooper I Harry Manson

did so in the contaminated grid square (Figure 9) and some people usedYellow Creek for water. The potential for water contamination in YellowCreek has been discussed earlier. Thus, concern is warranted; however,the ESG (1999b) found that water samples collected from ground moni­toring wells on Anderson Island (four of these wells were within thePCB-contaminated area) contained low levels of PCBs «0.2 ppb of PCBsmeasured as Aroclor 1254; <0.6 ppb of PCBs measured as Aroclor 1260;ESG, 1999b) . Since, PCBs are lipophilic, it is not surprising that levels ofPCBs in water were negligible; PCBs would be bound to particulatematter in the water not dissolved in the water. Until water samples fromYellow Creek and the spring in the contaminated area are sampled, wateras a route of PCBs exposure cannot be discounted. Other issues in­clude concern over surface run-off during the spring thaw and the effectof flooding.

The present land use study has provided definitive data showingthat Anderson Island, and more specifically the contaminated site, havebeen utilized extensively by members of Fort Albany FN during the timeperiod when the MCRL Site 050 was in existence. There is no doubt thatpeople of Fort Albany FN have been exposed to contaminants eitherdirectly or indirectly, but the question remains of human uptake (this ispresently being investigated; Tsuji et al. unpublished data); exposuredoes not equal uptake. Lastly, if levels of contaminants are found to beelevated, human health endpoints should be examined. This type of landuse approach would be useful to identify potential routes of exposureand data gaps (e.g., what type of receptors need to be sampled) forother MCRL sites in need of remediation, DEW line sites, other militaryinstallations and any other potentially contaminated sites.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mary Jane Stark, Celine Koostachin, Guy Iannucci,and Chief Mike Metatawabin & Council of Fort Albany First Nation fortheir help and support. Special thanks to all the participants.

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme1998 Assessment Report: Arctic Pollution Issues. Oslo, Nor­

way: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme.Ayris, S. and S. Harrad

1999 The Fate and Persistence of Polychlorinated Biphenylsin Soil. Journal ofEnvironmental Monitoring 1:395-401 .

Utilization of Land Use

References

515

ATSDR2000 Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Up­

date). Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry, US Department of Health and HumanServices, Public Health Services.

Becking, G. and U. Bickis1999 Human Health Risks from PCBs at the Former Mid­

Canada Line Radar Site 050 at Fort Albany Ont. (Draft).Kingston, Ontario: Phoenix OHC, Inc.

Berkes, F., P.J. George, R.J. Preston, A. Hughes, J. Turner and B.D.Cummins

1994 Wildlife Harvesting and Sustainable Regional NativeEconomy in the Hudson and James Bay Lowland, On­tario. Arctic 47:350-360.

Berkes, F., A. Hughes, P.J. George, R.J. Preston, B.D. Cummins andJ. Turner

1995 The Persistence of Aboriginal Land Use: Fish and Wild­life Harvest Areas in the Hudson and James Bay Low­land, Ontario. Arctic 48:81-93.

Braune, B., D. Muir, B. DeMarch, M. Gamberg, K. Poole, R. Currie, M.Dodd, W. Duschenko, J. Eamer, B. Elkin, M. Evans, S. Grundy, C.Herbert, R. Johnstone, K. Kidd, B. Koenig, L. Lockhart, H. Marshall, K.Reimer, J. Sanderson and L. Shutt

1999 Spatial and Temporal Trends of Contaminants in Cana­dian Arctic Freshwater and Terrestrial Ecosystems: AReview. The Science of the Total Environment 230:145­207.

Bright, D.A., W.T. Dushenko, S.L. Grundy and K.J. Reimer1995 Evidence for Short-Range Transport of Polychlorinated

Biphenyls in the Canadian Arctic Using Congener Sig­natures of PCBs in Soils. The Science of the Total Envi­ronment 160/161 :251-263.

1999b

Downs,A.T.1999

516 Leonard J. S. Tsuji 1Kelly Cooper 1Harry Manson

Bright, D.A., S.L. Grundy and K.J. Reimer1995a Differential Bioaccumulation of Non-ortho-Substituted

and Other PCB Congeners in Coastal Arctic Invertebratesand Fish. Environmental Science and Technology29:2504-2512.

Bright, D.A., W.T. Dushenko, S.L. Grundy and K.J. Reimer1995b Effects of Local and Distant Contaminant Sources:

Polchlorinated Biphenyls and Other Organochlorines inBottom-Dwelling Animals from an Arctic Estuary. TheScience of the Total Environment 160/161 :265-283.

Cameron, J.1999 MNR Comments on PCB - Health Risk Report by Phoe­

nix OHC Inc. Peterborough, Ontario: Ministry of NaturalResources.

Canadian Cabinet Defence Committee1954 Continental Defence - Mid-Canada Warning Line, Cana­

dian External Relations - 1954. Ottawa, Ontario: PublicArchives of Canada.

Canadian Department of National Defence2001 The Distant Early Warning Cleanup. Http://

www.forces.ca/eng/archive/2001/aug01/31 distant b e.htm.

Cummins, B.D.1991 Attawapiskat Cree: Land Tenure and Use 1901-1989.

Ph.D. Dissertation. Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster Univer,..sity.

Comments on Toxicologist Report for Fort Albany MCLSite. Ottawa, Ontario: Department of National Defence.

Dushenko, W.T., S.L. Grundy and K.J. Reimer1996 Vascular Plants as Sensitive Indicators of Lead and PCB

Transport from Local Sources in the Canadian Arctic.The Science of the Total Environment 188:29-38.

Environmental Sciences Group1999a Mid-Canada Line 1998 Site Assessment/Delineation.

Kingston, Ontario: Royal Military College, Environmen­tal Sciences Group.Fort Albany, Site (050). Site Remediation Phase One:Delineation 1999. Kingston, Ontario: Royal Military Col­lege, Environmental Sciences Group.

Fast, H. and F. Berkes1994 Native Land Use, Traditional Knowledge and the Sub­

sistence Economy in the Hudson Bay Bioregion. Winni­peg, Manitoba: Natural Resources Institute, Universityof Manitoba.

Frank, R., H.E. Braun and B. Thorpe1993 Comparison of DDE and PCB Residues in the General

Diet and in Human Blood - Ontario 1986-87. Bulletin ofEnvironmental Contamination and Toxicology 51 :146­152.

Utilization of Land Use 517

Gibson, K.M.1993

1999

Abandoned Radar Sites Mid-Canada Radar Line SiteInvestigation. August 9 - 11, 1993. Timmins, Ontario:Ministry of Environment and Energy.Phoenix OHC Inc. Report, MOE Comments. South Por­cupine, Ontario: Ministry of the Environment.

Hanson, H.C.1953 Muskeg as Sharp-Tailed Grouse Habitat. Wilson Bulle­

tin 65:234241.Health Canada

1999 Kitchenuhmaykoosib - Sioux LookoutZone Environmen­tal Contaminants Health Study (Draft Proposal). Ottawa,Ontario: Health Canada, Medical Services Branch.

Hill, D.T.1999

Huebert, R.B.2000

Hunter, L.1998

Mid-Canada Line Site 050 (Fort Albany) Clean-up.Ohsweken, Ontario: D. Hill & Associates.

Security and the Environment in the Post-Cold War inthe Arctic. Environment and Security 4:1 01-117.

Notice of Meeting Mid-Canada Line EnvironmentalClean-up Protocol.

Kaczmarek, S.1999 Notes/Comments on Becking/Beckis Report. Timmins,

Ontario: Porcupine Health Unit.Kimbrough, R.D.

1995 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Human Health: AnUpdate. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 25:133-163.

Kinney, A., E. Fitzgerald, S. Hwang, B. Bush, and A. Tarbell1997 Human Exposure to PCBs: Modelling and Assessment

of Environmental Concentrations on the AkwesasneReservation. Drug and Chemical Toxicology 20:313-328.

Leonard J. S. Tsuji I Kelly Cooper I Harry Manson

Review of the Issues Around the Fort Albany Site. To­ronto, Ontario: Environmental Health and ToxicologyUnit.

Thorne, D.H.2003 The Mid Canada Line 1958 - 1965. Http://

www.lswilson.calmcl.htm.Tsuji, L.J.S., J. Kataquapit, Billy Katapatuk and G. Iannucci

2001 Remediation of Site 050 of the Mid-Canada Radar Line:Identifying Potential Sites of Concern Utilizing TraditionalEnvironmental Knowledge. Canadian Journal of NativeStudies 21 :149-160.

Wilson, L.S.2003 The Mid Canada Line. Http://www.lswilson.calmcl.htm.

Zeeb, B. and R.J. Reimer1999 Comments re: 'Human Health Risks from PCBs at the

Former Mid Canada Line Radar Site 050 at Fort Albany,Ont.' By George Becking & Ugis Bickis, Phoenix OHC,Inc. Kingston, Ontario: Environmental Sciences Group.

Smith, L.F.1999

518

Langstaff, K.E.1998 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment of Old Fort

Albany Diesel Generating Station (Final Draft 1998). To­ronto, Ontario: Ontario Hydro Technologies.

McCrea, R.C. and J.D. Fischer1986 Heavy Metal and Organochlorine contaminants in the

Five Major Ontario Rivers of the Hudson Bay Lowland.Water Pollution Research Canada 21 :225-234.

Myers, H. and D. Munton2000 Cold War, Frozen Wastes: Cleaning up the DEW Line.

Environment and Security 4:119-138.Population Health - Medical Services Branch

1999 Response to the Human Health Risk Study of PCB inFort Albany (HHR) (Draft). Ottawa, Ontario: HealthCanada.

Schell, L.M. and A.M. Tarbell1998 A Partnership Study of PCBs and the Health of Mohawk

Youth: Lessons from Our Past and Guidelines for OurFuture. Environmental Health Perspectives 106:833-840.

Utilization of Land Use

Figure 1A land-use map of the areas where people have lived

(note: each quadrat/cell =2,500 m2).

519

legend

-- Road_____ 0__ Runway

.- - - , Contaminated

. - - - • Area/Radar Base

Number of individualsactive per cell

o1 - 3

4-5

_6-20

_>20

520 Leonard J. S. Tsuji I Kelly Cooper I Harry Manson

Figure 2A land-use map of the areas where people have worked

(note: each quadrat/cell =2,500 m2).

! I! I

I II

~-,I I

MkINLAN~

Legend

-Road

-r"------- Runway•- .. - ., Contaminated. - .. - I Area/Radar Base

Number of individualsactive per cell

o1 - 5

6-10

_ 11·20

_>20

Utilization of Land Use 521

Figure 3A land-use map of the areas where people have participated in

recreational activities (note: each quadrat/cell =2,500 m2).

j

M1INLANb

Legend

.................... Road

..,:::....... Runway

• - - - 'I Contaminated. - - - f Area/Radar Sas6

Number of individualsactive per cell

o1 ·10

11·20

_ 21·30

_>30

522 Leonard J. S. Tsuji I Kelly Cooper I Harry Manson

Figure 4A land-use map of the areas where people have been involved in

educational activities (note: each quadrat/cell =2,500 m2).

Legend

-Road

:--"-!i!1il!!i Runway•- .. .. .. Contaminated. - .. - I ArealRadar Base

Number of individualsactive per cell

o1*2

3-4

_5-10

_>10

Utilization of Land Use 523

FigureSA land-use map of the areas where people have harvested grouse

(note: each quadrat/cell =2,500 m2).

!

I I1 1

M1INLANj)

Legend

-Road,.,-'-.,-;_._-_. Runway

.- .. .. , Contaminated

...... - I Area/Radar Base

Number of individualsactive per cell

o1· 5

6·10

_ 11·20

_>20

524 Leonard J. S. Tsuji I Kelly Cooper I Harry Manson

Figure 6A land-use map of the areas where people have harvested hare

(note: each quadrat/cell =2,500 m2).

legend

-Road

~---"- -- Runway.- - - .. Contaminated. - ... - I Area/Radar Base

Number of individualsactive per cell

o1-2

3-4

_5-15

_>15

Utilization of Land Use 525

Figure 7A land-use map of the areas where people have harvested fish

(note: each quadrat/cell =2,500 m2).

legend

-Road: ...::~.:~...:- Runway

•- .. - .. Contaminated. - .. - I AreaIRadar Base

Number of individualsactive per cell

o1·3

4-7

_8-15

_>15

526 Leonard J. S. Tsuji / Kelly Cooper / Harry Manson

FigureSA land-use map of the areas where people have harvested berries

(note: each quadrat/cell =2,500 m2).

legend

--_. Road

::;;C'T-W: Runway•- - - .. Contaminated, - - - • Area/Radar Base

Number of individualsactive per cell

o1 • 10

11·25

_ 26·75

_>75

Utilization of Land Use 527

Figure 9A land-use map of the areas where people have collected water

(note: each quadrat/cell =2,500 m2).

Legend

-Road':.:~.~:.n::::: Runway

.- Contaminated

.... .. I Area/Radar Base

Number of individualsactive per cell

o1·3

4·10

_ 11·25

_>25